Look, I said before that I don't intend to engage seriously except through message, but I do think you at least are genuine with your questioning and so will make one response here.
Rape is non-consensual sex, and thus the outcome of such an act cannot create a duty of care (I don't see a logical way of arguing from a non-consenting act to gaining responsibility for another), thus abortion becomes permissible in the case of rape. It would still be tragic, as it is the ending of an innocent life, but without a rational way of justifying the duty of care extending to the mother there is no way of justifying the violation of bodily autonomy. In consenting acts this is justifiable (as bodily autonomy can already be limited based on certain circumstances, neglect laws, and newborns), but not in cases of rape.
If the life of the mother is at risk then it becomes trickier. Usually in an accident when a paramedic needs to make a rapid decision to save a child or an adult the child is prioritized, which gives some weight to the idea that if only the mother's life is at risk that the child should still be saved, but I am not firm in that view. I tentatively take the view that abortion is permissible (because I do think that the nature of the unborn child is somewhat different than the born child), though an absolute tragedy, in those situations (though I am open to having my mind changed as it is a tentative position). I do want to note, however, that these types of situations are actually very rare.
Lastly, the idea that a fetus with certain development problems is somehow less worthy of life than a healthy one seems, to me, to use the same exact line of reasoning that one would use to argue that children with, for example, Down's Syndrome are lesser.
If you want to have any further engagement in a serious manner, then message me.
